• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Another PET 2001 motherboard needs your help...

Yeah, I think Dave meant trigger on D5-10, which is (or should be) the beginning of a line of characters; we want to see what's unusual as it steps the video RAM through the next 40 addresses.

I think you're probably going to have to temporarily cut a trace or two to see if that signal is weak at its source C8-3 or if it's being pulled down by one of the chips it's driving (D8-10, D5-9 and C1-11), unless you can see such a tiny difference on your scope at those points.
 
I've just posted a picture of an enhanced image of the clock pulse. Please take a look. To me it looks like the broken boards pulse is reduced by 1/3, both in time and voltage.

You did not list the timebase, but I'm guessing that it was 50 nS per division. The clock still looks a little wimpy. The clock spec for a 74LS107 requires a high time of at least 20 nS which the wimpy clock barely meets. By the schematic, it is supposed to be 62.5 nS. Of course your scope may be a little out of calibration, but I think the problem involves this clock somehow.
 
You did not list the timebase, but I'm guessing that it was 50 nS per division.
Yes, I think thats right, basically I have the TIME/DIV set to .5 and the variable switch pulled out for 10X magnification.

I'll see if I can do the trigger test now...
 
Yeah, I think Dave meant trigger on D5-10, which is (or should be) the beginning of a line of characters; we want to see what's unusual as it steps the video RAM through the next 40 addresses.

Ok...I have posted some more pictures of this. Hopefully I have done this triggering thing right and haven't embarrassed my self again.

I have also made some simple 2 frame animation flipping between the good and bad PET boards at both 10us and 5us. I'm hoping this will make it much easier to spot any anomalies. The D5-10 trigger is seen top and bottom of the screen, and the D5-9 pulse can be seen running through the middle of the screen, hopefully this isn't too confusing.

Philip
 
Last edited:
I've head some private discussion on that topic with phil, but I thought I'd rather join this thread...


Looking at http://web.me.com/lord_philip/other_computers/20012.html#50 there definitively is a problem with the D5 pin 9 clock. It's much too weak and too short, as dave_m says.
Looking at http://web.me.com/lord_philip/other_computers/20012.html#52 you can (just barely) see that when DIS.ON (D5 Pin 10) goes low, the clock on D5 pin 9 is a very little bit weaker then on the other times. As the signal is already that weak, this might be the cause for your symptom.

Edit: of course the signal drops gets weaker when DIS.ON goes high, not low... it was late when I posted this....
 
Last edited:
I think there might be a good test to see if the problem is with some IC loading the D5 pin 9 signal, or the source of the signal (C8 pin 3) is giving a weak output. With the scope, try to compare the signal C8 pin 3 with C8 pin 2, one should be the inverted of the other. If C8 pin 3 is weak as we see it and C8 pin 2 is normal strong, it should be some kind of load - if both signals are weak it is much more likely that C8 is the problem.

What do you think?
 
What do you think?

Yes, the more insight into the problem, the better, because at some point Phil will have to decide to replace one of the parts, and that is no fun and might damage the printed wiring.

So let's hope he gets enough insight, such that he gets it right with the first try.

Here is an old trick: How about if he solder wicks the pad at the clock output (C8-3) to free the pin. He then can slide on some wire insulation (we used to use very small diameter heat shrink tubing) over the pin from the bottom of the board to isolate it from the circuitry.

Now he can test the output pin separately from the loads without cutting any traces.
-Dave
 
...to see if that signal is weak at its source C8-3 or if it's being pulled down by one of the chips it's driving (D8-10, D5-9 and C1-11), unless you can see such a tiny difference on your scope at those points.

Mike,
I'm starting to think that it may be the clock output since loading can effect the signal amplitude, but would it effect the pulse width?

This PET is fighting Phil 'tooth and nail', but with all us 'PET Detectives' on the case, hopefully he will get this classic machine working.
-Dave
 
Hi fachat, thanks for joining us on this thread.
After reading your comment I was looking in more detail the readings from the scope (as I have the benefit of higher resolution images) and I think that when DIS.ON goes low, the D9-9 signal actually goes higher, but when DIS.ON goes high then the D9-9 signal actually drops a little...Strangely enough this is exactly the opposite of what happens on the good board!
If you look at the last two video's I posted you may be able to see this clearer, and I have now also put up a magnified section taken from the same frames as the video uses so you can see a little better.

Dave,
Re: isolation the pin. Thats an interesting idea, and I'd certainly prefer to try that than cut traces.

Thanks again guys
 
Mike,
This PET is fighting Phil 'tooth and nail', but with all us 'PET Detectives' on the case, hopefully he will get this classic machine working.
-Dave

With the help of knowledgable and passionate folks like yourselves I've managed to fix a quite a large number of things over the years, from multiple 70's and early 80's arcade boards to Apple II's and Sinclair computers, but I've never come across a problem quite so elusive.
 
but when DIS.ON goes high then the D9-9 signal actually drops a little...Strangely enough this is exactly the opposite of what happens on the good board!

Phil,
That sure sounds like a 'smoking gun' to me since we know the problem is at the very beginning of each horizontal scan. We are getting close!
 
Phil,
That sure sounds like a 'smoking gun' to me since we know the problem is at the very beginning of each horizontal scan. We are getting close!

Oh, I hope so.
I'll wait a bit, and if there are no further thoughts, then I'll attempt to isolate C8 pin 3 as you suggested, and test it again.
 
I've unsoldered pin 3 of C8, but I just can't see how I can slide anything between the hole and the pin to isolate it, the tolerances just look too tight. I was thinking instead I should just remove C8 and socket it, then bending pin 3 out, or replacing the IC all together will be easy.
Not something I really wanted to do, but what do you think?

EDIT: ok...I went ahead and removed C8 and socketed it.
 
Last edited:
YEEEEEE HAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
It works, it works!!!!!


So I went ahead and removed C8 and put in a socket. I did a very good job, no mistakes at all, no burning, no lifted traces...helps having a desoldering station I guess. I put the 74LS107 back and tested again. It was just like before, which at least let me know my soldering was good.

Anyway, I lifted pin 3, and stuck a probe on it. Looking at the scope I was having trouble seeing any real pulse like before, which was strange, so I decided to jumper directly from the lifted C8 pin 3 to D5 pin 9. When I fired up the machine it showed a perfect start screen!!! I've done a quick typing test and that seems good too.

So I guess the final question is, why does putting a jumper direct from the lifted C8 pin 3 to D5 pin 9 fix the problem?

Maybe next I should try a new 74LS107 and see if that works without having to lift the leg and jumper it.

Anyway, wow, what an effort by everyone involved. I'll save my official thanks until the machine is fully fixed, but for the time being...Thanks to all.
 
Last edited:
UPDATE: As I had some spare 74LS107's, I tried one out without pin 3 being lifted. The problem returned and was the same as before.

Then I tried jumping C8 pin 3 to D5 pin 9 without lifting the pin 3 like before, but again that did not fix the issue.

So my uneducated guess is that another IC is pulling C8 pin 3 voltage low, and that IC is possibly not D5, which leaves D8 or C1. Would this be a good assumption?

Not quite there yet...but very close.

Phil
 
UPDATE #2:

Jumping C8 pin 3 to D5 pin 9 - Works
Jumping C8 pin 3 to D8 pin 10 - Works
Jumping C8 pin 3 to C1 pin 11 - Works

Strange!
 
Well, this machine is not giving up the fight just yet.
Just incase there was a cold solder joint, I re flowed the solder on D8 pin 10 and C1 pin 11, and at the points where the associated trace jumps from top to bottom or bottom to top on the board.

On restart I saw no change, I then flipped the board over and sprayed with some flux cleaner to clean off the little bit of flux residue I had left in soldering the new socket in. On restart all I get now is random characters again. Back to square one!!!

This is so frustrating I want to cry!!!

UPDATE: The problem seems to have gone away. So scary!
 
Last edited:
UPDATE #2:
Jumping C8 pin 3 to D5 pin 9 - Works
Jumping C8 pin 3 to D8 pin 10 - Works
Jumping C8 pin 3 to C1 pin 11 - Works

I am not sure I understand here. Did you mean you lifted C8 pin 3 out of the socket and connected it to the three pins mentioned in turn? It should actually not work, I would assume all signals are necessary.

Or did you leave it in the socket and connected it to the three pins in turn with an extra connection, bypassing the trace and it works? Wouldn't really understand either that all pins work.

As a further analysis:

C1 creates the "inverse" enable signal which is used when a character has bit 7 set in the screen memory. It's output is fed into the XOR made up of C2 (NAND pin1-3, pin4-6) and E2 (pin1-3) to generate the video bitstream out signal. It could explain the overall weaker clock pulse if it would pull the signal down, but not the specifically lower pulse when DIS.ON goes high.

D8 is another beast. D8 creates the vertical drive (pin11-13). But that is not "in sync" with line generation, so it is unlikely that this causes effects in sync with the raster line start (DIS.ON going up). It is also used to compare the video address with some value (most likely something around 32768+1000 :) and generate a signal that clears the JK-Flipflop at C7, which then clears the memory counters, thus going back to address 0. This part is also unlikely to interfere with something that is in sync with rasterlines. Yet this part may still pull the clock signal low in general.
But: D8 actually creates the reset pulse for the clock pulse coming from C8 pin3, our problem child. When C8 pin 3 goes high, D8 pin 8-10 synchronize this signal with the 8MHz clock, then it is fed directly into the reset pin for our C8 pin 3 signal. So..: the 8MHz clock is on one side almost directly fed into the reset pin C8 pin 13. On the other side it is fed through counter C9 (divided by 8) and used as clock signal for C8. If C9 has aged and shows a different delay than it used to, the phase difference between the clock and the reset at C8 pin 13 may have changed, resulting in a much shorter (and thus weaker - as it does not have enough time to rise to full strength) clock. This could be an explanation for the in general lower and weaker clock pulse on C8 pin 3. Unfortunately not for the specific extra-weak pulse when DIS.ON goes high.

The only one of the three receivers of the C8 pin 3 signal that has a connection to DIS.ON that could explain the weaker pulse when DIS.ON goes high is of course D5, which has DIS.ON as reset signal.

So, to summarize. There are two options:
1) It is a power-related problem. Then any of the three ICs D5, D8, C1 could pull the clock pulse low and would likely show similar symptoms on other inputs. Also the chip could show a different temperature signature (being colder or hotter than the others)
2) It is a timing-related problem. Then it would be C9, or maybe even D8 that has aged and changed its timing characteristics.

To identify what is going on:
1) My suggestion is: Check the three ICs D5, D8, C1 in terms of signal quality on their other inputs. If one of these ICs "pulls", the other inputs (not only the one we investigate from C8 pin 3) may also be pulled and show a low voltage (similar to C8 pin 3 compared between the working and the broken PET). Finding such an input would probably even more of a smoking gun. Also you may check the quality of the supply voltage of these chips and compare them with each other. Maybe also check if one of those gets hotter or colder than the others.
2) compare the signal quality (pulse width, timing relation to DIS.ON - note for the latter it may be difficult to see differences, as the timing difference would only be in around 10ns) of C9 pin 1 (8MHz clock, same as D8 pin 9), C9 pin 11 (1MHz clock, same as C8 pin 12) and D8 pin 8 (reset signal for our clock, same as C8 pin 13) between the working and the broken PET.
(Note no need to put it up all on pictures if you don't see differences, to avoid unecessary effort)

André
 
I am not sure I understand here. Did you mean you lifted C8 pin 3 out of the socket and connected it to the three pins mentioned in turn? It should actually not work, I would assume all signals are necessary.

Or did you leave it in the socket and connected it to the three pins in turn with an extra connection, bypassing the trace and it works? Wouldn't really understand either that all pins work.

I just want to quickly respond to this (the rest of your email will take some time for my mind to digest).

C8 pin 3 is lifted out of the socket, and a jumper lead connects the lifted leg to D5 pin 9 and the board worked. Then I tried connecting the lifted leg to D8 pin 10 and finally I tried C1 pin 11. Each time I did this the board worked fine. I find this actually very perplexing. I know that if I jumper the lifted leg to, say, D5 pin 9 the traces leading from D5 pin 9 will then electrically connect to D8 and C1. The same goes for jumpering to D8 pin 10 and C1 pin 11. Once I jumper to one connection, they are all again electrically connected through the traces.

Now why the jumper lead makes the board work but when the leg is back in the socket the board doesn't work baffles me. Surely it's exactly the same connections. Or am I missing something basic.

Phil
 
Last edited:
Now why the jumper lead makes the board work but when the leg is back in the socket the board doesn't work baffles me. Surely it's exactly the same connections. Or am I missing something basic.

Phil

I suppose there could be a corroded/high impedance section of trace that is between the output and the loads. By jumpering to one of the loads, you eliminated that section. With the jumper, does the clock signal look better?

A bad trace that is not 'dead open' is one of the toughest problems to find! Your idea to jumper the signal was brilliant. Congratulations. Of course if the clock still looks wimpy, there may be some residual problem left but at least the system is working.
-Dave
 
Last edited:
Back
Top